National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vvr Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. vs Chennupathi Hanumantha Rao on 18 March, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2119 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 21/03/2013 in Appeal No. 119/2012 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. VVR COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, V. SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O VENKATESHWARA RAO, C/O MIRCH YARD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR A.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHENNUPATHI HANUMANTHA RAO S/O VENKATA SWAMY, R/O DUDUKKURU VILLAGE.INKOLLU MANDAL, PRAKASHAM A.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SINGH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Advocate For the Respondent : ex parte
Dated : 18 Mar 2020 ORDER
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member
1. This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', challenging the Order dated 21.03.2013 passed by The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission', in F.A. No. 109 of 2012 and F.A. No. 119 of 2012 arising out of the Order dated 29.12.2011 in C.C. No. 20 of 2011 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur, hereinafter referred to as the 'District Forum'.
The Petitioner herein, VVR Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., through its Chairman, was the Opposite Party before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Cold Storage Co.'.
The Respondent herein, Mr. Chennupathi Hanumantha Rao, was the Complainant before the District Forum, and is hereinafter being referred to as the 'Complainant'.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the Cold Storage Co.
Vide this Commission's Order dated 18.07.2019 the Complainant was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 29.12.2011 of the District Forum, the impugned Order dated 21.03.2013 of the State Commission and the Petition.
3. The Complainant's case is that he stored 200 bags of white Bengal gram with the Cold Storage Co. on 17.03.2007. He took delivery of 169 bags on 07.01.2008, retaining the balance 200 (-) 169 = 31 bags with the Cold Storage Co. He stored further 145 bags of white Bengal Gram with the Cold Storage Co. on 09.04.2008. On then wanting to take back his stock, he found that the 31 + 145 = 176 bags were damaged due to deficiency / negligence on the part of the Cold Storage Co. He filed a Complaint before the District Forum on 27.01.2011.
4. The District Forum vide its Order dated 29.12.2011 determined that the claim apropos the residual 31 bags stored in March 2007 was barred by limitation, the claim apropos the 145 bags stored in April 2008 was within limitation, and allowed the Complaint partly in respect of the said 145 bags stored in April 2008.
The Award made by the District Forum, as contained in para 24 of its Order, is reproduced below:
24. In the result the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:
1. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.3,65,400/- (Rupees three lakh sixty five thousand four hundred only) to the complainant towards the value of the goods stored together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 27.01.11 till the date of realisation.
2. The opposite party is also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by him.
3. The opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant towards costs of the complaint.
The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks failing which the amount ordered in item No. 2 shall also shall carry interest @9% p.a. till realisation.
5. The Cold Storage Co. filed Appeal before the State Commission challenging the said Order dated 29.12.2011 of the District Forum. The Complainant also filed Appeal before the State Commission inter alia challenging the finding of the District Forum that the claim apropos the residual 31 bags stored in March 2007 was barred by limitation.
6. The State Commission vide its Order dated 21.03.2013 dismissed both Appeals, and confirmed the Order dated 29.12.2011 of the District Forum.
Extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission, as contained in paras 10 to 16 of its Order of 21.03.2013, are reproduced below for ready appreciation:
10. In regard to the limitation aspect, the appellant had handed over the stock to the respondent on 24.3.2007. The District Forum has observed that as per condition No. 8 of storage bond, the goods are stored on season basis. Condition No. 8 of the bond reads as under:
All goods are stored on month-to season basis unless otherwise provided. If months basis a storage month shall extent from a date in one calendar month to but not including. The same date of the next of succeeding calendar months but if there is no correspondent date in a next succeeding calendar month it shall extent to and include the last day of that next succeeding business day.
11. Thus, the appellant and the respondent proceeded on the premise that the stocks are stored on season to season basis i.e. from march to December of the year. The end of the year would be the starting point for reckoning the period of limitation for filing the complaint before the District Forum. The complaint was filed on 27.1.2011. The complaint has to be filed within two years from the date of cause of action.
12. The complainant stored 200 bags of Bengal gram with the opposite party on 16.3.2007. He took delivery of 169 bags on 7.1.2008 keeping the balance 31 bags with the opposite party. The complainant stored 145 bags of Bengal gram with the opposite party on 9.4.2008.
13. Insofar as the time in regard to stocks stored on 16.3.2007, as per condition no. 8 of the bond, would expire by March 2008 and limitation for filing the complaint starts from April 2008 for a period of two years which will expire by April 2010. The complaint is filed on 27.1.2011. Therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that the claim in regard to stocks stored on 16.3.2007 is barred by law of limitation.
14. The District Forum held the claim in regard to the stocks stored on 9.4.2008 as well within the period of limitation. The limitation period for the claim would start from 9.4.2009 for a period of two years which would expire on 8.4.2011. The complaint was filed on 27.1.2011. Thus, there is no infirmity in the finding of the District Forum that the claim insofar as the stocks stored on 9.4.2008 is concerned, is not barred by law of limitation.
15. The deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is manifest by its failure to follow the term no. 10 of the agreement. The opposite party has not issued any notice to the complainant inspite of taking consistent stand that the goods were required to be stored for the longer than year. The opposite party has also not taken any steps for sale of the stock by conducting auction. In all aspects the condition no. 10 of the agreement is floated by the opposite party. The District Forum has rightly found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party insofar as the failure of the opposite party in abiding the condition no. 10 of the agreement is concerned.
16. The complainant has not shown any cause as to how his claim in respect of the stock stored on 16.3.2007 is within the period of limitation. On that score, the appeal filed by him is liable to be dismissed. In the same fashion, the opposite party has not shown any reason for not sticking to the terms and conditions of the agreement and failed to render service to the complainant causing loss to the complainant to the true of Rs.3,65,400/-. Both appeals as such are liable to be dismissed.
(emphasis supplied)
7. The Cold Storage Co.'s contention in questioning the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Guntur is ill-conceived and erroneous.
Section 11 (2) of the Act deals with territorial jurisdiction of District Forum.
When the cold storage was itself located in Guntur, and the Cold Storage Co. carried on business in Guntur, and the cause of action wholly or in part arose in Guntur, the District Forum at Guntur decidedly had the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.
8. Section 24A of the Act provides for a limitation period of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action arose.
A condition in the storage bond provided for storing the stock for one year.
In respect of the claim of 31 bags, stored on 17.03.2007, the cause of action arose on 16.03.2008, and, as such, the Complaint, filed on 27.01.2011, was beyond the limitation period of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action arose.
In respect of the claim of 145 bags stored on 09.04.2008, the cause of action arose in 08.04.2009, and, as such, the Complaint, filed on 27.01.2011, was within the limitation period of 2 years from the date on which the cause of action arose.
9. The Fora below determined deficiency in service on the part of the Cold Storage Co., in:
[a] not keeping the stock stored by the Complainant in undamaged condition;
[b] not adhering to a condition in the storage bond of giving notice to the Complainant requiring him to remove his stock from the cold storage, i.e. not giving him the reasonable opportunity to remove his stock; and [c] not adhering to a condition in the storage bond of (otherwise) conducting public auction of the stock, i.e. not obtaining a fair open price for the unclaimed stock, retaining its dues if any, and remitting the balance if any to the Complainant.
10. Both the Fora below have returned concurrent findings.
The Award made by the District Forum (quoted in para 4 above), and as upheld by the State Commission, appears just and equitable.
No jurisdictional error, or a legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible in the State Commission's impugned Order, as may require interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.
11. The Act is for "better protection of the interests of consumers", in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals.
Its Statement of Objects and Reasons says of "speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes".
The dispute relates to 31 + 145 = 176 bags of white Bengal gram stored by the Complainant with the Cold Storage Co. in March 2007 and in April 2008, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum in 2011, the litigation before the District Forum and the State Commission extended upto 2013, the Revision Petition was filed before this Commission in 2013, we are now in March 2020.
It is not without significance that the Complainant, a resident of village Duddukuru in Prakasam district, contested before the District Forum at Guntur and before the State Commission at Vijayawada, between 2011 to 2013. Then before this Commission at New Delhi the litigation lasted from 2013 to 2020. He preferred not to contest (further). The afore speaks for itself, requires no elaboration.
This is a plain and simple case of a cold storage company, with wherewithal, on the one side, and an ordinary common consumer, without wherewithal, on the other side, with the cold storage company first indulging in deficiency in service, causing loss and injury to the consumer, and then litigating, unsuccessfully, in one, and then, two, Consumer Protection Fora. Before the third Forum, i.e. this Commission, also, its case fails miserably.
All this is not viewed favourably, this requires caution and cost.
12. The Petition, being patently ill-conceived and totally bereft of merit, is dismissed with stern advice of caution to the Cold Storage Co., through its Chairman, by imposition of cost of Rs. 50,000/-, to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the District Forum, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order, without fail.
13. The State Commission's Order of 21.03.2013 is sustained. The Award made by the District Forum vide its Order of 29.12.2011, and as upheld by the State Commission, is confirmed.
14. The Cold Storage Co., through its Chairman, is directed to ensure 'dasti' service of this Order on the Complainant and to file proof thereof with the District Forum, within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order, without fail.
15. The amount deposited by the Cold Storage Co. with the District Forum in compliance of this Commission's Order dated 13.09.2013 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be utilized by the District Forum as per the due procedure towards satisfaction of its Award and of the cost imposed herein (refer paras 12 and 13 above).
16. In case of failure or omission in compliance (refer paras 12, 13 and 14 above), the District Forum shall undertake execution, for 'Enforcement' under Section 25(3) and for 'Penalties' under Section 27 of the Act, as per the law.
17. A copy each of this Order be sent by the Registry to the District Forum, to the Chairman of the Cold Storage Co., the Petitioner herein, and to the Complainant, the Respondent herein, within three days of its pronouncement.
18. The District Forum is also requested to send a copy of this Order to the Complainant, forthwith.
...................... DINESH SINGH PRESIDING MEMBER